Toby Inkster, Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0000:
> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 09:39 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> I'm making a stronger point than that, though. Even in the presence
>> of just a single extension, you are unable to extract the data unless
>> you specifically know the extension being used. You require vocab
>> knowledge just to disambiguate it from HTML itself.
>
> Indeed. Extraction of data by generic agents is not intended to be a use
> case the proposal satisfies. If you consider this to be a problem, note
> that this problem also applies to the existing method of extensibility
> suggested by the HTML5 draft (i.e. extensibility by becoming an
> "applicable specification").
>
> The advantage that my DE proposal has over "applicable specification
> extensibility" are: scoped URI-based opt-in; and well-established
> fallback parsing, behaviour and rendering.
It struck me that D.E. via @class, @data-* and @profile has some
similarity with Maciej's idea about D.E. via custom attributes [1].
Here I quote a start tag example of what Maciej had in mind [3]:
<div rotating-sphere -webkit-rotating-sphere -moz-rotating-sphere>
Maciej's example would be possible via the @profile/@class/@data-* D.E.
proposal as well though:
<div class="rotating-sphere -webkit-rotating-sphere
-moz-rotating-sphere" profile="uri" ></div>
So, Maciej, what's your view of Toby's proposal? Personally, My view is
that unless your proposal allows authors to make the custom attributes
valid, then your proposal will only work for vendors - as only the big
browser vendors can afford to recommend un-validating attributes.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0894
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0825
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0895
--
leif halvard silli